Greece becomes first Orthodox Christian country to legalize same-sex marriage

[RileyG]

What are you being forced to conform with? Who the secular state issues civil marriage to does not effect your beliefs about Holy Matrimony.

To be forced to participate in this nonsense, which needs to stop.

 

[dzheremi]

If I can take a stab at answering what BCP1928 has asked, despite not being Greek or Eastern Orthodox (so I have no dog in this particular fight; I'm just trying to understand what I believe to be going on here with the disconnect between people who see this as fine and people who do not):

It is a question of the new metaphysics involved in saying that two people of the same sex can be "married" because the state and the wider society has said so, as though the creation of legal rights actually make reality something other than what it is. Of course, it is in everyone's best interest to recognize that this has happened anyway, and that the state and the Church are not the same even in places like Greece that have an official state Church (e.g., things like the nomocanon of Justinian are, as far as I can figure it from listening to EO people talk about it, an attempt to give Christian guidance to Christian officials in how to do their jobs, not to say that the Church is the state), but on a deeper level of "what do we accept into our society", there is a level of cognitive dissonance involved in having to say that up is down or that left is right in order to get along and place nice with authorities and thought-leaders, hence believing Orthodox in Greece and elsewhere don't wanna do it.

Imagine the opposite were the case and all of the atheists and humanists had to pay lip service to the reality of the Christian God even though they do not actually believe. I would wager that more than a few would find that to be oppressive, even if literal force were not involved to get them to comply. The fashions of thought involved in living in any given time can be enough to create an environment that many will object to.

To me it is natural that such tension should exist between the wider society and the Christians who cannot abide by it, as the same was the case with regard to, e.g., the founding of Christian monasticism in Egypt roughly 1,800 years ago. So this is not a new thing, even though today's particular circumstances may feel that way.

 

[The Liturgist]

I could care less about the secular law. What concerns me is what this means for the Church to preach according to the Bible. For ex. if a priest or pastor preaches that we are created male & female and it is those in which we believe God says that is what a human marriage is ( Mark 10:1-12). Will the secularist “rights” authority say such preaching violates their interpretation of “rights”?

Probably. I suspect at the rate things are going, its only a matter of time before women are admitted to Mount Athos and the monasteries are desecrated with rainbow flags. Indeed there have been pious canonical Orthodox monastics who have been warning about this problem.

 

[comana]

To be forced to participate in this nonsense, which needs to stop.

When were you forced to participate in a civil marriage for a LGBTQ couple?

 

[The Liturgist]

And yet you are insisting the reverse, that the state submit to the approval of the church.
Are there really any substantial differences?

Too many to count. Although amusingly, the Episcopal Church also accounts for a huge percentage of our converts. Within a few decades there will only be a handful of extremely liberal, mostly non-Trinitarian Episcopal parishes left, if any; probably they will unite with the UCC and the Unitarian Universalists and the ELCA and the UMC. All Anglican Episcopalians will have moved to ACNA, the Continuing Anglican Churches, and the Orthodox Church, and also i think it is quite likely that some of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions will enter into communion with the Orthodox, or be absorbed into Western Rite Orthodoxy.

As a matter of fact, I’m attempting to arrange such a union as we speak, and I think it has a good chance of success, and would be the first time an Anglican church converted wholesale to Orthodox Christianity.

And I do insist that secular governments submit to the authority of the church, in three specific respects: firstly, that they not transgress the Natural Law, the essential principles of Christian morality, as it were, nor permit their citizens to do so (this would not interfere in the practice of legitimate religions such as Judaism or Sikhism, but on the contrary would benefit them, since most of the legitimate religions of the world agree on essential issues of morality, for example, the depravity of homosexuality, which is regarded as either a grave sin, a disordered act, or a form of unethical behavior or misconduct in Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Taoism, and most religions with the exception of ancient Hellenic paganism and a few other specific and disturbing examples).

Secondly, I insist secular governments not persecute Christian churches or interfere with their normal worship or operation, as was done, unlawfully as it turned out, in California, Nevada and New York, among other places in the US, during Covid. It may have been lawful in other lands, but what happened in the US was unconstitutional. It was especially absurd in Nevada, where churches were prohibited from conducting divine worship yet liquor stores, even those which are not also convenience stores, were allowed to operate normally. This was particularly disturbing insofar as it implied that drunkeness was more important than divine worship.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the church must have judicial autonomy: to detain a clergyman, or try him in a civilian court, without consent of his bishop or in the case of the bishop, the Holy Synod, constitutes an act of sacrilege insofar as it involves a violent restraint placed upon a person in Holy Orders. Anyone in Holy Orders, whether an altar server or reader or a subdeacon, deacon, presbyter or bishop, must have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. In the case of the Roman Catholic church, it has a means of providing this, via Vatican City citizenship and diplomatic passports, and also via the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Likewise, this could be provided for clergy of Northern European countries and historically was, since they have established churches. Unfortunately at present the Orthodox lack a sovereign protecting power (in the past, various countries including Russia and France have served as protecting powers for Christians in the Middle East, as an example) and the situation in Greece represents a deterioration of that, in that the closest thing we have to a sovereign Orthodox land is Mount Athos, which is an autonomous area within Greece under the control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople via the governing council of the Great Lavra. But Mount Athos cannot issue passports, which is a bit of a let down.

It is such a tragedy Archbishop Macarius was deposed by the military junta, for that act led to the current illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus and also, along with the assassination of Emperor Haile Selassie, represented the end of the last specifically ecclesiastically Eastern and Oriental Orthodox countries respectively.

 

[BCP1928]

If I can take a stab at answering what BCP1928 has asked, despite not being Greek or Eastern Orthodox (so I have no dog in this particular fight; I'm just trying to understand what I believe to be going on here with the disconnect between people who see this as fine and people who do not):

It is a question of the new metaphysics involved in saying that two people of the same sex can be "married" because the state and the wider society has said so, as though the creation of legal rights actually make reality something other than what it is. Of course, it is in everyone's best interest to recognize that this has happened anyway, and that the state and the Church are not the same even in places like Greece that have an official state Church (e.g., things like the nomocanon of Justinian are, as far as I can figure it from listening to EO people talk about it, an attempt to give Christian guidance to Christian officials in how to do their jobs, not to say that the Church is the state), but on a deeper level of "what do we accept into our society", there is a level of cognitive dissonance involved in having to say that up is down or that left is right in order to get along and place nice with authorities and thought-leaders, hence believing Orthodox in Greece and elsewhere don't wanna do it.

Imagine the opposite were the case and all of the atheists and humanists had to pay lip service to the reality of the Christian God even though they do not actually believe. I would wager that more than a few would find that to be oppressive, even if literal force were not involved to get them to comply. The fashions of thought involved in living in any given time can be enough to create an environment that many will object to.

To me it is natural that such tension should exist between the wider society and the Christians who cannot abide by it, as the same was the case with regard to, e.g., the founding of Christian monasticism in Egypt roughly 1,800 years ago. So this is not a new thing, even though today's particular circumstances may feel that way.

There is nothing "metaphysical" about civil marriage. It is simply a secular legal arrangement with the state, not materially different than a business partnership. It does not change or interfere with the moral stance of the church on homosexuality. What's next? No business partnerships for homosexuals? No driver's licenses, no passports?

 

[RileyG]

When were you forced to participate in a civil marriage for a LGBTQ couple?

Such as providing services. If someone feels the “marriage” is wrong, they have every right to say no. Period.

 

[BCP1928]

Such as providing services. If someone feels the “marriage” is wrong, they have every right to say no. Period.

Would you provide services for two homosexuals in a business partnership?

 

[dzheremi]

There is nothing "metaphysical" about civil marriage. It is simply a secular legal arrangement with the state, not materially different than a business partnership. It does not change or interfere with the moral stance of the church on homosexuality. What's next? No business partnerships for homosexuals? No driver's licenses, no passports?

If you don't think that there is anything being said about the nature of existence in the arguments made by western secularists vis-a-vis gay marriage and other LGBT-related issues, then obviously what I have described will seem very strange and incorrect, as it no doubt does to many in Greece (that's why this thread even exists, after all). Nevertheless, I believe that is where the difference ultimately lies between those who are okay with this development and those who are not, which was the entire point of my post. I do not wish to engage your further questions concerning business partnerships, driver's licenses, or passports, because the same argument could be made at any level at which the wider society engages in crafting reality so as to create new legal categories of persons, with legal rights attending.

 

[BCP1928]

If you don't think that there is anything being said about the nature of existence in the arguments made by western secularists vis-a-vis gay marriage and other LGBT-related issues, then obviously what I have described will seem very strange and incorrect, as it no doubt does to many in Greece (that's why this thread even exists, after all). Nevertheless, I believe that is where the difference ultimately lies between those who are okay with this development and those who are not, which was the entire point of my post. I do not wish to engage your further questions concerning business partnerships, driver's licenses, or passports, because the same argument could be made at any level at which the wider society engages in crafting reality so as to create new legal categories of persons, with legal rights attending.

And it would be just as bootless. Your moral position with respect to homosexuality may be sound, but you are overreaching your moral authority. when you attempt to exert it using the power of a secular state. Your only earthly power over a secular state is through the votes of your adherents.

 

[dzheremi]

Calm down. There is no "your" in this. I'm Coptic Orthodox, and this did not happen in Egypt or New Jersey.

Also, if that's the case with Orthodox Christians in Greece (that they are "overreaching their moral authority" by "attempting to exert it using the power of a secular state"), then why is the same not true with regard to the secular people who voted for it? They are asserting their moral position over the position of the Church using the power of a secular state, after all. The way you've phrased this makes it seem like this is a conflict of numbers, rather than what it actually is: a vastly different conception of what it is to be a person, how people should relate to one another, what marriage is, etc., etc. This is why I wrote that it was a matter of a new metaphysics, since it involves all of these things that are really basic to being able to define what is real and what is not. People may vote into existence new concepts of person and personal relations, but when they are built upon things that cannot be, what can anyone do but say "No, I refuse to recognize that as being true"?

You are clearly placing the atheistic secularist's worldview above that of believing Christians, which is of course your right to do, but it's a little more difficult for me to see why any Christian should go along with you in doing that just because the state of Greece has. The state is not our God. It cannot say "Be!", and then it is.

 

[RileyG]

Would you provide services for two homosexuals in a business partnership?

I wasn’t referring to a business partnership. Besides some homosexuals aren’t all in your face about their lifestyle and choose to respect other peoples boundaries.

 

[BCP1928]

Calm down. There is no "your" in this. I'm Coptic Orthodox, and this did not happen in Egypt or New Jersey.

Also, if that's the case with Orthodox Christians in Greece (that they are "overreaching their moral authority" by "attempting to exert it using the power of a secular state"), then why is the same not true with regard to the secular people who voted for it? They are asserting their moral position over the position of the Church using the power of a secular state, after all. The way you've phrased this makes it seem like this is a conflict of numbers, rather than what it actually is: a vastly different conception of what it is to be a person, how people should relate to one another, what marriage is, etc., etc. This is why I wrote that it was a matter of a new metaphysics, since it involves all of these things that are really basic to being able to define what is real and what is not. People may vote into existence new concepts of person and personal relations, but when they are built upon things that cannot be, what can anyone do but say "No, I refuse to recognize that as being true"?

You are clearly placing the atheistic secularist's worldview above that of believing Christians, which is of course your right to do, but it's a little more difficult for me to see why any Christian should go along with you in doing that just because the state of Greece has. The state is not our God. It cannot say "Be!", and then it is.

No, it's a question of the amount of authority the Church has as an institution to exercise secular political power over those who don't belong to it. I expect we won't agree on the answer, but that is the question.

 

[BCP1928]

I wasn’t referring to a business partnership. Besides some homosexuals aren’t all in your face about their lifestyle and choose to respect other peoples boundaries.

Some Christians are the same way, with no more justification.

 

[dzheremi]

No, it's a question of the amount of authority the Church has as an institution to exercise secular political power over those who don't belong to it. I expect we won't agree on the answer, but that is the question.

According to the US State Department's 2022 report on religious freedom in Greece, 81 to 90 percent of the country identify as Greek Orthodox, so going by that metric it would seem that we are both wrong: It's apparently about how a majority of people in Greece who identify as Orthodox don't care about what their own Church teaches, and/or immediately forget about that when they enter the voting booth. You can bet that this law was not enacted with only the support of the 10-19% of the population who do not belong to the Church.

 

[RileyG]

Some Christians are the same way, with no more justification.

That’s fair.

 

[BCP1928]

According to the US State Department's 2022 report on religious freedom in Greece, 81 to 90 percent of the country identify as Greek Orthodox, so going by that metric it would seem that we are both wrong: It's apparently about how a majority of people in Greece who identify as Orthodox don't care about what their own Church teaches, and/or immediately forget about that when they enter the voting booth. You can bet that this law was not enacted with only the support of the 10-19% of the population who do not belong to the Church.

Or they just might have had a different idea about the political authority of the Church in a secular state than you do. Many who supported the measure were not shy in asserting that homosexual couples were living in sin, whether they were in a civil marriage or not. They also may have had a different idea of the secular authority of the state, as well. Same sex marriage is not a new version of civil marriage, merely a reconsideration of the qualifications for it. Civil marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement, allowing couples to form a legal household with respect to the state, nothing more. No physical consummation is required, and the personal relationship between the two parties is not specified, nor are the reasons for entering into the relationship considered. There are countless examples, some known personally to me, where no emotional or intimate sexual relationship was even contemplated by the couple. For example, in the early years of the twentieth century, young women with no other prospects would marry elderly veterans of the American Civil War, to share the pension in return for services as a caregiver. Forming a civil household. provided a convenient legal arrangement. (The last Civil War widow died in 2020, 165 years after the end of the conflict). Considered as a civil contract, there is no reason to deny civil marriage to any two unrelated adult citizens. If the rights of citizenship are extended to homosexuals and homosexuality is not illegal, then it is hard to see why civil marriage should be denied them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Too many to count. Although amusingly, the Episcopal Church also accounts for a huge percentage of our converts. Within a few decades there will only be a handful of extremely liberal, mostly non-Trinitarian Episcopal parishes left, if any; probably they will unite with the UCC and the Unitarian Universalists and the ELCA and the UMC. All Anglican Episcopalians will have moved to ACNA, the Continuing Anglican Churches, and the Orthodox Church, and also i think it is quite likely that some of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions will enter into communion with the Orthodox, or be absorbed into Western Rite Orthodoxy.

Too many to count, yet you list no substantial differences and instead talk of mergers.

As a matter of fact, I’m attempting to arrange such a union as we speak, and I think it has a good chance of success, and would be the first time an Anglican church converted wholesale to Orthodox Christianity.

A recognition of little substantial difference. On to something more on topic...

And I do insist that secular governments submit to the authority of the church,

That's not how it works in a secular government. We live in a pluralistic society with a secular government. It is my DUTY to resist the capture of the government by any church or religion.

in three specific respects: firstly, that they not transgress the Natural Law, the essential principles of Christian morality, as it were, nor permit their citizens to do so

I work with the natural law all the time. As a certified expert, I can tell you it is impossible to violate the laws of nature. (Attempting to do so can result in immediate and painful repercussions.)

It is not only not the province of the government to impose the principles of any religions morality, but it is an abomination to insist that we do.

(this would not interfere in the practice of legitimate religions such as Judaism or Sikhism, but on the contrary would benefit them, since most of the legitimate religions of the world agree on essential issues of morality, for example, the depravity of homosexuality, which is regarded as either a grave sin, a disordered act, or a form of unethical behavior or misconduct in Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Taoism, and most religions with the exception of ancient Hellenic paganism and a few other specific and disturbing examples).

(Ths "universality" you mentioned here far beyond even the bounds of trinitarianism also belies the vacuous nature of your Episcopal and Orthodox non-similarity claim.)

Secondly, I insist secular governments not persecute Christian churches or interfere with their normal worship or operation, as was done, unlawfully as it turned out, in California, Nevada and New York, among other places in the US, during Covid. It may have been lawful in other lands, but what happened in the US was unconstitutional. It was especially absurd in Nevada, where churches were prohibited from conducting divine worship yet liquor stores, even those which are not also convenience stores, were allowed to operate normally. This was particularly disturbing insofar as it implied that drunkeness was more important than divine worship.

Do you not know what "normal" is? The pandemic of 4 years ago was anything but normal. This is not the topic of this thread, so I see no reason to expand the conversation on this tired topic.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the church must have judicial autonomy: to detain a clergyman, or try him in a civilian court, without consent of his bishop or in the case of the bishop, the Holy Synod, constitutes an act of sacrilege insofar as it involves a violent restraint placed upon a person in Holy Orders.

What? If they have reason to bring a lawsuit, then of course they can, but the state should not lend its power of detention and punishment to the enforcement of violations of private rules within an organization.

Anyone in Holy Orders, whether an altar server or reader or a subdeacon, deacon, presbyter or bishop, must have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

Oh good grief.

In the case of the Roman Catholic church, it has a means of providing this, via Vatican City citizenship and diplomatic passports, and also via the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Neither of which should be recognized by the international community, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Likewise, this could be provided for clergy of Northern European countries and historically was, since they have established churches. Unfortunately at present the Orthodox lack a sovereign protecting power (in the past, various countries including Russia and France have served as protecting powers for Christians in the Middle East, as an example) and the situation in Greece represents a deterioration of that, in that the closest thing we have to a sovereign Orthodox land is Mount Athos, which is an autonomous area within Greece under the control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople via the governing council of the Great Lavra. But Mount Athos cannot issue passports, which is a bit of a let down.

I have no idea what the great larva or mount athos is or why you think them relevant to this thread.

It is such a tragedy Archbishop Macarius was deposed by the military junta, for that act led to the current illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus and also, along with the assassination of Emperor Haile Selassie, represented the end of the last specifically ecclesiastically Eastern and Oriental Orthodox countries respectively.

To the extent that I recognize the persons/events in this paragraph, they are all a long time ago and not relevant to this post.

 

[Lukaris]

State and Church in the Eastern Roman Empire continued to be closely integrated until very recently. Even under the Ottoman Empire, Christian society retained this structure in daily life although Christians had become second class citizens. Conditions were usually harsh, stressful and uncertain. The last remnant of Orthodox Christian Constantinople was actually eliminated in 1955.

Istanbul pogrom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Until 1946, Greek civil law existed according to imperial pattern going back to the Emperor Justinian.



Unlike Justinian's Codex which continued to have an impact in the West as the continuation of Roman Law, the Basilika's influence was limited to the Eastern Empire. This included having a lasting impact on Greece's modern law code. Following the Greek War of Independence against Turkey in 1821, the Basilika was adopted until the introduction of the present Civil Code of Greece. This long continuation of Roman influenced Byzantine law presents a stark contrast to the legal system of the West.

Basilika - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

https://georgiades.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2.Greek-Law-Digest-Aspects-Greek-Civil-Law.pdf

I am not Greek or of Greek ancestry so I don’t want to misrepresent Greece in any way. I do think though there are similarities but also major differences between Western European & Eastern European mindsets even if these are lumped together as Western “civilization”.

 

[The Liturgist]

Too many to count, yet you list no substantial differences and instead talk of mergers.

Yes, but if you really want, I could, I suppose, condescend to provide a list of the differences between the Episcopal Church and the Eastern Orthodox (or the Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrians, pick one), but I should caution you its quite a list. The curious thing about the Episcopal Church is there are individual parishes that have come under heavy Byzantine Orthodox influence, theologically and even liturgically, and some even have celebrated the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom using rite III, but at the same time, the mainstream of the church is radically different and disagrees with us on an official level on nearly everything.

Indeed there was a faction that tried to unite the Episcopal Church with the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century, but when St. Tikhon of Moscow and St. Raphael Hawawheeny then had the unpleasant experience of coming into contact with bishops of a different churchmanship, that was the beginning of the end of that dream. And the Episcopalians, of the churches in the Anglican communion, are the ones closest to Orthodoxy on a dogmatic and liturgical level (in terms of actual ecumenical relations, the C of E still has good relations whereas the Episcopal hierarchy burned their bridges with us decades ago and probably regards us as an existential threat given the continual movement of converts from the Episcopal church into the Orthodox church, and into continuing Anglican churches.

But that being said rather than waiting for me to write such an epic list you could take a better course of action and pick up the second edition of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick, which is an heresiographical encyclopedia in the grand tradition of Saints Irenaeus, Epiphanios of Salamis and John of Damascus, and consequently outlines the distinction between Orthodoxy and most other denominations and religions in a loving way (the first edition was criticized for having a somewhat more polemical tone, but as Fr. Andrew matured as a theologian, his heresiographical skills improved as well).